Oral Answers to Questions

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues.

Ann McKechin: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but as he will appreciate, we are currently undergoing a tender process and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that process, which we hope will complete later this year. I remind him that 27 bank or building society accounts can already be accessed through the post office network. We are committed to the idea that the universal access criterion must have priority.

John McFall: The Minister will realise that it is crucial that the post office is put on a sound financial footing. For the next four or five years, POCA must be instrumental in ensuring that that is the case. Otherwise, sub-postmasters will voluntarily close post offices and we will find that our financial inclusion targets will not be met as a result. Will the Minister keep those comments in mind when she is discussing the issue with her ministerial colleagues?

Gavin Strang: May I thank my hon. Friend for his active involvement in the banking crisis? Does he agree that the futures of the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland are of huge significance to Edinburgh, the south-east of Scotland and to the Scottish economy as a whole? Will he continue to work with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to support the banking system and above all to sustain as many financial sector jobs as possible in Scotland for the long term?

Jim Murphy: Serious times call for serious measures. Where I can, I try to say clearly that as Secretary of State for Scotland I will work with anyone who is working on behalf of Scotland, which is why I convened the first-ever gathering of CBI Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the First Minister to demonstrate that, where we can, we should be working together. That is the approach that I shall take every day in this job.
	We have to look for additional ways to discuss the problems facing Scottish banks, and if my hon. Friend thinks that calling the Scottish Grand Committee is part of the solution, I look forward to his making that case. I would of course have no hesitation in appearing before the Scottish Grand Committee.

Jim Murphy: I look forward to visiting Ayrshire shortly. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that unemployment went up across many parts of the United Kingdom last week, after years of growth in employment. In response, the British Government published a £100-million training plan, the Welsh Government published a £30-million training plan, and the Scottish Government issued a press release. That is not the action of a serious Government. The fact is that there are enormous challenges, and one such challenge in the current economic crisis is to ensure that those who are economically on the bottom rung of the ladder do not become dislodged and take a generation to recover. I am determined to work with everyone and anyone, across Scotland, to make sure that that does not occur.

HBOS/Lloyds TSB

David Cameron: The Prime Minister says—[Hon. Members: "More!"] There's plenty more.
	The Prime Minister says that he wants us to listen; we have been hearing about his fiscal rules for 10 years. He stood there and lectured us about the brilliance of his fiscal rules. Why will he not now admit that they are dead? Let us just remember them—he used to be so proud of them. Rule one was, "Only borrow to invest"; now he is having to borrow to pay for unemployment benefit. That rule is dead. Rule two— [ Interruption. ] They do not like being reminded about their own fiscal rules. They used to enjoy the lectures so much. Rule two was, "Don't have debt over 40 per cent. of national income." Even on his own fiddled figures, that rule is now dead. Why will he not admit that the rules failed to deliver responsibility in the good years and that, as soon as the bad times came, they collapsed completely?

David Cameron: I asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed that you cannot spend your way out of a recession. Why did he not just say yes? I have a quote for him. It is something that he said in 1997—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Oh, it was 10 years ago, so it does not count—is that the new rule? This was not some off-the-cuff speech; it was at the Labour party conference, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said,
	"we have learned from past mistakes...you cannot spend your way out of recession".
	Is not the truth that the Prime Minister has been going round, telling everyone that he is the new John Maynard Keynes with a plan for a spending splurge? Meanwhile, the pound has fallen further than in any previous devaluation, and the Chancellor is having desperately to back off. So can he confirm: is he planning a spending splurge or not?

John Butterfill: The Prime Minister will be aware of the widespread public concern about foreclosures on mortgage properties, particularly by banks like Northern Rock. Is he aware that some other debts—unsecured debts such as those on store cards—are being purchased by debt factoring companies, which are then applying to the courts for attachment to properties, subsequently obtaining possession of them for trivial debt? Is that a correct interpretation of the law, and if it is, does not the law need to be changed?

Richard Bacon: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for relevant information about food, including information about the country of origin, contents and standards of production of that food, to be made available to consumers by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes.
	The first occasion on which I sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to require clearer labelling of food was in 2004. I was certainly not the first Member to seek to introduce such legislation, and many Members throughout the House have supported the proposition that consumers should have clearer, more accurate and more honest information about the food that they buy than is currently required.
	Since 2004, interest in local sourcing and local production of food has grown significantly. The issue of food miles has become more prominent in political discussion, and the importance to consumers of higher animal welfare standards has continued to increase. Only this morning, on the BBC Radio 4 programme "Farming Today", an egg farmer spoke of his continued shift towards free-range hens for egg production, because that was what consumers wanted.
	Attempts to improve the law continue. My own Bill has support from Members on all sides of the House, and I note that next week my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) will seek leave to introduce her own Food Labelling Bill, which I understand focuses mainly on nutrition and health issues. It will complement my Bill, which, as well as providing information about the content and production standards of food, will ensure that information about the country of origin of different foods is included in labelling.
	Consumers should have the information that they need to make informed decisions about the food that they buy. A wide range of issues may rightly concern them when they make their purchasing decisions, including the nutritional and calorific value of food, the salt or fat content, the animal welfare standards according to which food is produced, and the country of origin. Any food labelling regime must seek to address those various concerns. It is important that all food producers adhere to the same high standards applied to food labelling, and the best way in which to achieve that is through a statutory framework.
	The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require food to be marked or labelled with information such as the name of the food, a list of its ingredients, the amount of an ingredient that is named or associated with the food, an appropriate durability indication, any special storage conditions, the name of the business and manufacturer, and in certain cases, the place of origin, as well as the process used in the manufacture and instructions for use.
	In July this year, the Food Standards Agency updated its guidance on the use of marketing terms such as "fresh", "pure" and "natural", but there was nothing new on country of origin labelling, although the guidance continues to draw attention to regulation 5 of the 1996 regulations, which requires
	"particulars of the place of origin or provenance of the food if failure to give such particulars might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the food."
	Currently, country of origin labelling must comply with the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which make it an offence to label any food in a way that falsely describes it or which is likely to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality. However, neither Act defines how much British involvement is required before produce can be sold as British.
	The specific expression "country of origin" is not defined in the 1996 regulations or in the food labelling directive 2000/13/EC. However, the approach taken in section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act is that, for the purposes of the Act, goods are deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country where they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change. This is likely to include the manufacture of bacon or ham, for example. However, at present, consumers are being misled. Pork that has been imported from Denmark and then packaged in the UK may be called "Product of Britain".
	The problem can apply to other food products, too. Butter churned in England using milk imported from Belgium should not, supposedly, be labelled "English", but it can lawfully be described as "produced in England from milk". Norwegian salmon that has been smoked in Scotland should not, supposedly, be called "Scottish", but it can lawfully be described as "salmon smoked in Scotland". Slaughtering in this country would count, so that "British lamb" could mean imported lambs slaughtered and packaged in the UK. Products can be labelled as "produced in the UK" when all the ingredients come from outside the country. There is concern that some companies have taken advantage of these slack regulations, and label their products with the Union Jack accompanied by slogans such as "traditional British food" or "great British recipe" when, in fact, they are not produced in this country.
	There is, obviously, a duty on consumers to read the labels in the first place, but there is also a need to prevent labels, presentation and other information from being misleading about the product. Country of origin is an area where there is particular potential for consumers to be misled. Clear mandatory country of origin labelling would significantly reduce the risk that consumers making a food purchasing decision would be misled, or in practice be unable to use their consumer power to support domestic producers if that is what they wish to do.
	Country of origin labelling already exists for beef, and I believe it should be extended to cover other fresh meat. There are more complex issues in the labelling of processed meat and dairy products, where the sourcing frequently varies. I acknowledge that these issues would need to be considered carefully in Committee. Modern labelling technology has improved considerably in recent years, and I am persuaded that it would now be easier for processed food manufacturers to comply with country of origin labelling requirements than it was in the past, but I acknowledge that processed food does present greater difficulties in labelling than fresh meat.
	This morning, I was pleased to attend the David Black memorial award breakfast in the House of Lords, celebrating the achievements of the British pig industry despite very difficult conditions in recent years, and particularly to honour the contribution to the industry of this year's award winner, Ian Campbell MBE. I was also pleased to receive a copy of a film entitled "An Inconvenient Trough", made by a group of pig farmers and launched this morning. It is an excellent follow-up to the campaign "Stand by Your Ham", which last summer featured Winnie the pig in a stall opposite Downing street, where she drew thousands of visitors, including many Members. This film draws attention to the conditions facing pig farmers, notably that 70 per cent. of the imports of pork and pork products into the United Kingdom are produced to animal welfare standards that would be unlawful in this country. It is in that context that we must look at country of origin labelling. I must emphasise that this is not in order to prevent consumers buying products from where they wish, but, rather, to ensure that they are making informed decisions and that they cannot be misled.
	Government can also do more. The pig industry has produced its own quality standard mark for pork, and for other pork products such as bacon and ham. The mark shows that the meat has been produced to higher animal welfare standards, yet 76 per cent. of bacon and 39 per cent. of pork served in Whitehall Departments is produced to the lower EU standards, not the higher standards of the quality standard mark.
	I make no secret of the fact that I wish all consumers would buy British meat all the time, but achieving that is a matter for consumers and is not the purpose of my Bill. I just want to see a fair deal for British farmers. I want to ensure that they are given the chance to compete fairly with overseas products, that the lower animal welfare standards often applied to imported production are clearly marked for consumers as well as the higher standards of domestic production, that farmers are able to engage the consumer in supporting the high standards of food safety, animal welfare and environmental care that lie at the heart of British farming and that they cannot be undermined by misleading labelling of competing products. A vital part of facilitating that shift in priorities will be to ensure that this country has far more rigorous and transparent food labelling. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Bacon, Keith Hill, Mr. Keith Simpson, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. David Ruffley, Angus Robertson, Mr. Roger Williams and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Jeremy Hunt: My party is in favour of exactly what the Select Committee says: that, wherever possible, we should ensure that there is a permanent legacy. The current plans for shooting do not allow any legacy to be created, and we think it highly regrettable that more research was not done into making possible some kind of legacy for shooting from the Olympics.
	May I ask the Secretary of State about design? When venues are being built, it is important that the potential legacy tenants—the people who will use the venues after the Olympics have finished—have some input into the design. Can he explain why design decisions have been taken before legacy tenants have been confirmed? That makes legacy use more expensive and less attractive to potential tenants. I compare that to what happened during the 2002 Commonwealth games in Manchester, when Manchester city was confirmed as a legacy tenant right from the outset, which meant that there could be a smooth transition and that a legacy could be assured.
	This June, the Government finally published their legacy action plan—three years after winning the bid and following two warnings from the Select Committee that they needed to get a move on. If the plan had been even barely adequate, however, we would not be having this debate. However, the fact is that it contains simply a series of re-announcements and only one new idea. The Government re-announced the promise of five hours of sport per week. That is fine as an aspiration, but when unpicked it works out at £15 per school per week to increase the amount of sport from two to five hours a week for every pupil. They also re-announced the target of making 2 million people more active, which dates from March 2007, as well as the medals target, which dates back to the 2006 Budget. They also re-announced decisions in a Department for Transport plan to boost cycling and a Department of Health plan to encourage healthy eating by babies. We should not plan the 2012 legacy by cobbling together every single programme with vague links to sport and the Olympics. This is not about looking at what we are already doing, but about what we could do.
	One new idea has been proposed: free swimming for under-16s and over-60s. Of course we welcome anything that encourages swimming, especially because it comes top of the list of sports that people say they would be interested in taking up. However, local councils say that not nearly enough money has been put aside to finance the plan. I would like to mention a matter that I brought to the Secretary of State's attention during the last Culture, Media and Sport questions. He received a letter from the Labour leader of Stevenage council—in the Minister of State's constituency—telling him that the average cost for a district council of implementing the scheme for the over-60s alone would represent a 2 per cent. increase in council tax. Is this really the time—when families up and down the country are struggling—for the Department to fund its schemes by bludgeoning its councils into back-door rises in council tax?

Andy Reed: I chaired the recent county sports partnership meeting in Leicestershire. We have asked all our local authorities to work together to ensure that we put together a Leicestershire-wide bid, rather than individual ones. The figures that came back varied enormously and had no basis—literally, they were almost made up. I fear that, in some circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's figures come from people just flying a little kite. Will he join with me in expecting much more detailed work from local authorities, rather than the usual scare story that local authorities need more money?

Andrew Pelling: Is not the fundamental point that this is a cobbling together of initiatives that would have existed already, at a national level? Only London government under the Conservative administration has recognised that if the legacy issues are not dealt with, we risk losing support for the whole Olympic project in London, particularly in south London where my constituents are becoming strongly opposed to the Olympics because there is no prospect of a legacy. For example, places such as Crystal Palace are not being invested in at all.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend has been very kind about the Select Committee, which, as I am sure that he will agree, is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Does my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) agree that it is not just crumbling churches that have suffered as a result of the lack of control over the Olympic budget? Grass-roots sporting organisations are having their funding taken away from them. The sporting legacy will not be delivered by the people watching the Olympics on TV, as most people will do. It can be delivered only by organisations such as those in my constituency—if they continue to receive lottery support for grass-roots sport, so that kids get involved in the first place.

Philip Dunne: Since my hon. Friend mentions the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I am sure that in his wide-ranging and impressive speech he will be planning to cover the cultural legacy, which is an important feature of the Government's proposals. They are short of ideas. Does he agree that an outstanding idea from the Opposition, which I hope that the Government will take away, would be to recognise the important contribution that this country has made to the Olympics by choosing a suitable site in the Olympic park to recognise the contribution of Dr. William Penny Brookes and the Wenlock Olympian Society to the origins of the modern Olympics?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. I have listened patiently to him and I am afraid that his argument is a long way away from my understanding of the impact of the Olympics. I represent a constituency 200 miles away, near Liverpool, yet our local authority has applied for funding for the Olympics, and has received it. Our health authority is introducing a huge number of initiatives on the back of the Olympics programme. We are feeling the benefit, and we are miles away. We feel really excited about the programme. We do not get any of the big buildings, but we have the seen the development of community centres, swimming pools and an integrated health plan to support health. I wanted the hon. Gentleman to know that, because it is my experience, and I would guess that it is not unique.

Pete Wishart: In Scotland, we are set to lose up to £200 million of lottery spending, and that will have an impact on good causes and grass-roots sports in every constituency. We are preparing for the Commonwealth Games in 2014, so does the hon. Gentleman think that there is case for us getting back some or all of that money to pay for our legacy in Glasgow?

Jeremy Hunt: I think that creating support for a sporting legacy is as important for the Commonwealth Games as it is for the Olympics. Returning the lottery to its original four pillars could potentially create an extra £400 million for grass-roots sport in the decade following 2012. That would mean that more money would go into sport in Scotland, Wales and every corner of the country.

Angus MacNeil: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, and I paid special attention to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). Is he saying that he would like Scotland's lottery money to be returned to Scotland, especially given that Scotland is building for the Commonwealth Games and hoping to create its own legacy from them? Would he go further and increase funding for Scotland from other parts of the lottery, as is happening with London in respect of the Olympics?

Jeremy Hunt: No, but the Culture Secretary may not have noticed that we are a long way past 2000 now. As a result, it is possible to wind up the Millennium Commission. I am not sure that many people in this House would say that how the commission spent its money was an especially good example of how lottery funding can be spent. Both sides of the House bear responsibility for what happened with the dome.
	I shall conclude by saying that we need vision. Where is the plan to send Olympians and Paralympians to every school in the country to fire up children with the Olympic vision? Where is the curriculum material that will mean that the Olympics can be integrated into what children are taught? We had such material for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, but there is no sign of it for 2012.
	Where is the plan to link sports clubs better to their local schools, so that we can reduce the current high drop-off rates when people leave school and stop playing sport? Most importantly, where is the imagination and determination to make sure that we get a legacy in the constrained and difficult financial circumstances in which we find ourselves?
	When the Olympics have gone, we are unlikely to see them back in this country in our lifetime. Therefore, let us use them to inspire a lifetime of sport and sporting values, because we have only one chance.

Andy Burnham: That is a perfect summary. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a series of nitpicking points about the Government's proposals, but not once did we hear a substantive suggestion about what the Conservative party would do differently to alter the place of sport in this country.

Hugh Robertson: I will. First, the Secretary of State just criticised us for making so-called party political points. Looking at the Olympic medal tables in the 1980s and early 1990s, we see that we came 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th in those years; he knows that perfectly well. He, of course, has picked the one year in the last 30-year cycle to suit his argument, which was a rather silly party political point. He also knows that it was overwhelmingly left-wing Labour councils that pursued an anti-competitive-sport agenda that did huge damage to the competitive sport system in this country.

Jeremy Hunt: No record was taken of the number of playing fields sold before 2000, and since 2001, well over 50 playing fields have been sold every single year. On competitive sports, in 1999, the Government abolished compulsory competitive sports for the over-14s. At the time, the Secretary of State was special adviser to the then Secretary of State. Was that the right decision or the wrong decision?

Andy Burnham: On the point about playing fields, tests were put in place by the new Government in 1997 to ensure that there was no net loss of sporting amenities. Every application since then has been checked by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, or by Sport England, to ensure that if a playing field was disposed of, the proceeds were reinvested to ensure that the community was provided with equivalent or better sports provision. That is a much better system than the one that was left to us by the hon. Gentleman's party in 1996. Is he defending that record? I do not think that he is.

Andy Burnham: We must carry on investing in the bread-and-butter facilities up and down the country. Councils provide the majority of sports facilities, we can do more to help them to bring facilities up to an acceptable standard. They need to provide a high-quality environment, particularly for young girls, who may not be willing to put up with the old shipping containers with changing rooms and showers and toilets that do not work. If people are going to play sport they need working toilets and showers and a warm environment to get changed in. Those are basic requirements, and we need to carry on working on that.
	Conservative Members keep referring to the raid on the lottery. They cannot have noticed that under my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics and her predecessor, efforts were made through the New Opportunities Fund to invest significantly in the sporting infrastructure in schools, predominantly in floodlit astroturf pitches, of which there are several in my constituency. Those facilities are now used by the community during evenings and weekends. A lot has been done to put in place the infrastructure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley wishes to see, but I am sure that he will push me in going further and I am happy to talk to him about that.
	Let me move on to another key point of our legacy. We want a more focused community sports system. Through Sport England, we developed a bold new strategy that will help to realise that ambition. Sport England will act more strategically as a commissioner of sports development so that we can work with governing bodies to expand participation and the talent pool. In return for public money and freedom comes greater responsibility. I expect governing bodies for sport to reach young people from all walks of life, and they will be expected to operate to the highest standards of internal governance. Women's sports, girls' sports and disability sports will not be optional extras, but a vital part of what governing bodies are expected to do. If any sport does not wish to accept that challenge, funding will be switched to those that do.
	We want a new system of funding for elite sport at an enhanced and more ambitious level. Public investment in elite sport will reach unprecedented levels in the run-up to the London games, with more than £300 million being put in, compared with £265 million for Beijing. That is the direct result of the decision by the Prime Minister, then Chancellor, in March 2006 to commit extra Exchequer funding to elite sport. In the run-up to the London games, we are taking that funding model further. Building on lottery-only funding at the Sydney games and lottery and tax funding at the Beijing games, we are putting in place for London a new mixed funding model to fund elite sport of lottery, Exchequer and business funding. That is the model that has served the arts and culture sector so well, and that is what we are seeking to create in elite sport.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will soon bring forward our plans for medal hopes, and there will be a high-profile fundraising drive reaching all parts of the country. We want all parties in this House to lend their shoulders to ensuring that the country gets behind the British team in the run-up to London 2012. These are well-worked-out plans that have been thought through in detail. It is true that the current economic conditions make raising £100 million from the private sector more challenging, but the performance of the British team in Beijing has given us the best possible platform to build from.

Andy Burnham: That is an incredibly gracious remark. But this is not about point-scoring. We were all surprised and delighted by the over-performance of the British team. As I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), we want them to go further in 2012, and that will be part of the legacy, too. If they do, young people will be inspired by the most successful ever British team, at our home Olympics. Think of the benefit that that will deliver to grass-roots sport in this country. It will be enormous. It will be time for the cynics to be quiet and let the sports-loving community of this country enjoy its moment—to enjoy a great time for this country, where people flood to take part in sport at a local level.
	The legacy will be a whole generation of young people receiving more and better sporting opportunities in school and in the community. There will be more opportunities for families to take part in sport together through our free swimming scheme, and opportunities for older people to be more regularly active. It will build a sound system for funding elite sport in the long term. That is the best sporting legacy that the London Olympics can deliver. We will deliver by 2012. I urge Members to support the Government amendment to the motion.

Don Foster: I begin where the Secretary of State ended, by placing on record our congratulations on the phenomenal success of our Olympic and Paralympic athletes in Beijing. I suspect that those results have done more to ensure a lasting Olympic legacy than today's debate will achieve. Nevertheless, it is an important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) on securing it.
	I want to make it clear from the outset, as the hon. Gentleman did, that my party fully supported the Olympic bid, and we fully support and fully back all the work being done to ensure that we have the best ever games in London in 2012. That does not mean that we do not have some concerns. We share some of the disappointments expressed. We believe that there have been some missed opportunities, and we believe that steps that could be taken are not being taken. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) announced in advance of his speech that he has a number of criticisms of the Olympic legacy plan, and so do we, but that in no way should be seen as undermining our support for the London Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012.
	Although the sporting legacy has been the main topic of debate and is the main issue covered in the motion, I was delighted that reference was made to other areas in which we hope to achieve a legacy. Reference has been made to the importance of ensuring a legacy for tourism—the fifth most important of the British economy, and it is in difficulty. Since 1997, when the figures were roughly in balance, Britons have spent about £19 billion more abroad than people from overseas have spent in this country. We urgently need to do more to support our tourism industry to ensure that it has a legacy as a result of the 2012 games.
	I therefore find it appalling that the Government are cutting the budget for VisitBritain. When that point was raised by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, the Minister for the Olympics said, from a sedentary position, "Where's the money going to come from?" I am sure that she would recognise that a bit of additional investment—or not cutting the planned investment—in VisitBritain, so that it can market this country abroad in the run-up to 2012 will bring huge financial rewards, not only to the tourism industry but to the Exchequer. It would be a very good investment.
	The other area that has not been touched on much, although it is an important part of the promised legacy, is the legacy for businesses in all parts of the country. It is worrying to look at what has happened in the awarding of Olympic contracts to date. We were told that every part of the country would benefit, but London and the south-east, which have 30 per cent. of all UK businesses, have so far won 69 per cent. of the 700 Olympic contracts that have been awarded. The north-east, which has 10 per cent. of all businesses, has won only 1 per cent. of the contracts. The Secretary of State, who comes from the north-west, ought to be concerned that his area of the country has 7 per cent. of all businesses, but has so far won only 2 per cent. of the Olympic contracts. We have to provide far more support in uplifting skills and providing training to ensure that businesses in all parts of the country can compete successfully for the remaining Olympic contracts.
	I note with interest, however, that there are good ways of making money, even out of debates on the Olympic legacy. Any Member who wishes to pay £90 will be able to go, on 3 November, to a discussion on the Olympic legacy. Perhaps we might charge those coming to this debate to raise some of the money that the Secretary of State needs.
	I want to turn, as the motion rightly does, to the issue of the sporting legacy.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend is right. As a result of the Olympics coming to London, there will be significant, much-needed improvement in transport in the London area. The North London line is important, which is why, should financial difficulties continue, we will work with the Government to find ways of solving problems so that the contracts can go ahead. I know that various options are being explored, and we will work with the Government to ensure the best deal not only for the taxpayer but to ensure that we get the much-needed infrastructure improvements in transport and building the Olympic park.
	I am the first to admit that there have been some phenomenal improvements recently, and I pay tribute to the Government for their work. The Secretary of State listed several improvements, with statistics. I hope that he will not, therefore, think it churlish of me to point out that further improvements could be made and that, if the Government effected them, we would get a better sporting legacy from 2012.
	Our elite athletes constitute one matter of concern. That wonderful performance in Beijing was backed up with a funding package of £265 million. The Government announced that we are considering a much bigger funding package—£600 million—for London 2012, and I welcome that. However, the problem remains of the £100 million shortfall. We know that perhaps £21 million will be found because of the new contract with Camelot about the third licence for the national lottery. However, that still means that £79 million must be found. Although the hon. Member for South-West Surrey did not mention it in his speech, he has said elsewhere that the Conservative party believes that the money should come from the Contingencies Fund. I am not convinced that that is the right way forward, but there is a proposal that the Secretary of State might seriously consider.
	The Secretary of State knows that we were critical of the second tranche of cuts from the national lottery to pay for the Olympic infrastructure and that we proposed, some four years ago—I am delighted that we now have Conservative support—a move to a gross profits tax approach for national lottery taxation. That approach is used in most other forms of gambling and betting. As he knows, the figures show that, if we did that, there would be more money not only for lottery good causes but for the Exchequer. I therefore hope that he will consider such increased Exchequer funding as a possible source for the £79 million that UK Sport is missing, and make the much-needed announcement in December.

Don Foster: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is surprised that I mentioned the legacy a lot, given that that is the title of the debate. None the less, I understand his concerns and those of colleagues in Scotland. I urge him to get behind the Liberal Democrat proposal for a gross profits tax on the national lottery. If he supported that, and the Government were persuaded to adopt it in the pre-Budget report, which will be made soon, Scottish good causes would receive significant additional funds.
	It is worrying that some of our elite athletes are so concerned that they plan to sell computer-generated images of themselves for £1,000 a year. The creators of the website, gold medal-winning sailors Sarah Webb and Sarah Ayton, have announced that they are £30,000 in debt after Beijing. We must address that genuine problem quickly. UK Sport needs a clear announcement as soon as possible.
	Not only the elite legacy is important, so let me deal with other aspects of sporting legacy. It is critical to provide more support for community sports organisations and school sport. The Conservatives offered the solution of reverting to the four—five if we count the millennium fund—pillars that were originally designed for the national lottery. That is superficially attractive, and I am sure that it will get much good news coverage, but I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey is prepared to say how Conservatives intend tackling the resulting black hole in aspects that they will no longer fund. As the Secretary of State said, education, health and the environment will lose £200 million a year. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey must explain where the money will come from.
	I understood that volunteers and community groups were important to the Conservative party—volunteers will certainly be needed for the Olympics. Yet, if we reverted to the four pillars, a further £65 million a year would be lost to community and voluntary groups. I have given the correct figures for the money that is spent outwith the four pillars.
	However, I accept that the Olympic legacy plan has the key objective of maximising an increase in UK participation at the grass roots in all sports and for all groups. If we are to achieve it, we must do more work in schools, and with our national and community sports and our recreational organisations. As the Secretary of State said, it is vital to get the country more active, and achieving that will not be easy. We cannot rely simply on our hosting the games. I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts the comments of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that no host country has yet been able to demonstrate a direct benefit from the Olympic games in the form of a lasting increase in participation.
	As well as hosting the games, we must do much more. As I said earlier, many good things are happening. The Secretary of State was good enough to mention the excellent UK school games that were held during the summer in Bristol and, significantly, Bath. He, the Minister for the Olympics, the sports Minister and the shadow sports Minister all came along. I am sure that they will all testify that it was a wonderful and inspiring event. I remind the hon. Member for South-West Surrey that it was partly funded by millennium funds—one of the pillars that he would ditch. However, I am glad that he enjoyed it. One thousand five hundred Paralympic and able bodied elite athletes took part. However, perhaps the Secretary of State did not know when he visited that, to make the event happen, many people volunteered.
	Volunteering is a critical part of the legacy that we must build in our work leading up to 2012. It was fantastic to hear what some of the young people who volunteered at the UK school games said—they now want to go on and get into the various programmes that will help them volunteer for 2012.
	I accept that there have been some fantastic improvements in some matters. As the Secretary of State said, 90 per cent. of school pupils now do two hours of sport each week—indeed, in my constituency, the figure is 92 per cent. In my area, which is covered by the former county of Avon, we have a fantastic county sports partnership, Wesport, which is doing amazing work to increase participation by linking schools and sports clubs, encouraging more coaching and volunteering, organising inter-school competitions and much more. The Secretary of State referred to increases in inter-school sports competition. Perhaps the best evidence of Wesport's success is the fact that in the past year 14,991 young people from the area took part in inter-school sports competition—an increase in one year of 9,053 young people taking part in inter-school sports, which is a phenomenal improvement.
	Sadly, however, the picture is not entirely as rosy as the Secretary of State made out. Despite the figures that he cited, 750,000 young people are not participating in two hours of sport in school time. He did not point out that that two-hour period includes changing time, so it is not two hours of sport. He also failed to make any reference to some of the age groups in which young people are not participating at anywhere near that level. Only 71 per cent. of pupils in year 10 and 66 per cent. of pupils in year 11 are doing the two hours, while 34 per cent. of pupils are not participating in intra-school competitions and 59 per cent. do not take part in inter-school competitions. One quarter of pupils do no sport outside school and the drop-out rate of people who leave school and then do no sport is alarming. Despite significant improvements, which I welcome, there is still a great deal to be done.
	It is easy to reel off the figures, but if we accept that analysis, the question is: what can be done about it? I would like to suggest to the Secretary of State, the Minister for the Olympics and the sports Minister that a number of things can be done, the first of which is to be very wary of setting targets. I welcome the reorganisation of Sport England and believe that the new approach is right. However, the Secretary of State should be well aware of what has happened under his Government over the past 10 years, during which time Sport England has missed nearly all the targets that were set for it. Of the 22 targets that I have asked parliamentary questions about, only two have been met. As for the others, either they were missed or we have been told that there are no data on them.
	Let me give the Secretary of State an illustration. One of his Department's public service agreements was to increase participation in sport by ethnic minorities. To achieve that, the Department tied it to a Sport England commitment to make some 4,000 grant awards, which will significantly benefit people from ethnic communities. That is all well and good, but then I asked the sports Minister a parliamentary question about how well we had done in achieving that target, to which I received the following reply:
	"Sport England does not record information on which groups funding is focused. Therefore, it is not possible to give a figure for the number of awards made by Sport England to projects that have significantly benefited people from ethnic communities in each year since 1999."—[ Official Report, 1 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 883W.]
	So, we set a target but we do not even keep any data on whether we have achieved it.

Don Foster: I think not, but I shall try to make some progress and give him a few more suggestions. The introduction of a gross profits tax is one example and the suggestion for how that could fill the black hole in the Olympic elite athletes budget is another, but let me give him some more.
	The first suggestion is to look into providing more support to community sports organisations. The first thing that we ought to do is to introduce a gross profits tax, which would put more money in. The second thing is to provide more support, to get more coaches and volunteers active. The third thing is to provide more protection for our playing fields. The Secretary of State rightly said that the Government had improved the arrangements. However, I hope that he will not deny that since 2001 some 267 playing fields that were covered under the legislation have been sold off, despite Sport England saying that doing so would be a threat to sporting facilities.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will also agree that in 2002 the then Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), promised the House that increased measures would be taken to protect smaller playing fields, which are those smaller than the 0.4 hectare area covered by the current rules, but bigger than 0.2 hectares. In 2006, the Secretary of State's Department gave me a parliamentary answer that said categorically that the Government were looking into the issue and that something would be done. In January 2008, I received a further answer that said categorically that they were looking into the issue and that something would be done, but to date nothing has been done. Will the Secretary of State intervene on me and give a categorical assurance that the Government will introduce measures to protect smaller playing fields, as was promised as far back as 2002?

Don Foster: I am of course grateful to the Secretary of State, but I was hoping for a commitment to do what the Government keep committing to, but do not do. In July 2002, and again on 24 July 2006, the Government said in a press release:
	"New legislation is also to be put in place to protect smaller playing fields. This change brings down the size threshold upon which Sport England must be consulted when a planning application for development is submitted from 0.4ha to 0.2ha".
	I also received a response to a question in January that said that the Government were going to do that, so I hope that we will get some action and not just the words that we have heard today from the Secretary of State.
	We also need to do more to help community sports clubs. The Government have rightly introduced the CASC, or community amateur sports club, scheme, which we welcome. However, despite the enormous benefits that can accrue to clubs from becoming a CASC—an 80 per cent. mandatory business rate relief, the ability to raise funds from donations under gift aid, tax-free income from interest and capital gains, and so on—of the 30,000 clubs that are deemed eligible to qualify, only 5,000 have done so to date. It is critical that we all work together to get that message out so that more clubs can qualify.
	We must do other things to help those clubs. As the Secretary of State has responsibility for licensing as well as for sport, may I ask him to look very closely into the concerns being expressed about the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on many sports clubs? Only yesterday, the Central Council of Physical Recreation presented evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport of the huge additional burden being placed on clubs of having to pay for the licence application and all the legal and planning work that is necessary for those applications.
	This is admittedly an extreme example, albeit one that was cited yesterday, but one yacht club whose annual bar turnover is just £3,500 pays the same for its licence as a wine bar situated next door that is open until 2 am every night of the week and whose turnover is likely to be nearer £3,500 a week. That cannot be right. We need to look at ways of lightening that burden. Giving the 80 per cent. rate relief to clubs that become CASCs is a way forward. Perhaps a similar relief could be considered in respect of licence fee applications as well.
	Only recently has it come to light that, because of changes in the way in which utility companies charge for land drainage, a huge additional burden is being placed on many sports clubs. Only one utility company has started the new procedure, but I am assured that it is to be rolled out to all water companies. That will result in a fantastic increase in charges to many sports clubs. One tennis club's charges have gone up by 2,841 per cent., from £85 to £2,500. That is unsustainable, and I believe that the Government should look at positive measures to provide help.
	A further way of providing help would be to consider a simple change to gift aid. If only the Government would accept the proposal to allow gift aid to be used on junior subscriptions to sports clubs! The cost to the Government would be a mere drop in the ocean— £1.6 million in the first year, rising to £4.3 million in later years—yet the measure could bring in about £1,500 per sports club per annum. That would be an enormous boost to the clubs, and provide enormous encouragement for young people to get involved in sport.
	We are worried that some of the things that could be done have not been done, and we are somewhat disappointed with the present legacy plans. We are optimistic about the future, but we believe that more could be done. I have outlined a number of proposals, and I hope that the Government will be willing to listen to them and, more importantly, to act on them.

Lyn Brown: I am almost at a loss for words when I try to describe the pride and anticipation that I felt when London was chosen as the venue for the 2012 games, and my delight that the Olympic park—centred in my constituency—is now starting to take shape. The clearing of the site and the initial infrastructure works are going well, despite a few unexpected changes. The power lines that blighted the skyline of the area for years are now being dismantled, and work continues to improve the waterways and the surrounding park, breathing new life into what were, quite literally, the backwaters of the east end of London. The stadium is emerging from the ground, and the seating support structure is already in place for all to see. An area that was a post-industrial polluted wasteland is well on the way to becoming the parklands of the Olympic site.
	However, today's debate is focusing not on the progress being made with the construction—impressive though that might be—but on the Olympic legacy. I want to focus not just on the sporting and cultural legacy—important though they will be—but on the entire legacy of the games. This is unashamedly a speech by a local MP advocating on behalf of her constituents. As I do not have much time this afternoon, I am not going to reiterate the many reasons why I am standing on my feet making this speech. I am not going to give the House a statistical analysis of the poverty in London—a London which, despite City bonuses and high incomes, is also a London of real economic deprivation and hardship, in which many struggle to survive. Newham is the fourth poorest local authority in London. Its neighbours—and fellow Olympic host boroughs—Tower Hamlets and Hackney are the poorest and second poorest respectively.
	The London bid for the games was predicated on leaving behind an important legacy for my constituents. The bid documents stated that
	"by staging the Games in this part of the city, the most enduring legacy of the Games will be the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there".
	The ambition of the bid was big, but not unachievable. The games present us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a real, positive difference to an entire community in, arguably, the poorest area of the country. It is for this obvious reason that the Olympic and Paralympic games must not simply be a fabulous sporting and cultural spectacle for a few weeks in the summer of 2012. They must become a mechanism for leaving lasting improvements in the health, housing, employment and skills of Londoners. To spend that amount of money and not achieve a lasting positive legacy would be obscene.
	The legacy commitments promised to east London were outlined in a document released at the beginning of the year, entitled "Five legacy commitments". The commitments included a new urban park, which we were assured would be "world-class", and an Olympic village of just under 3,000 affordable homes, of which it was stated:
	"After the Games, retained venues and new parklands will provide local people with places to spend their leisure time".
	The document goes on to say:
	"The Aquatics Centre will be open for community use and the Polyclinic, a medical services unit for athletes during the Games, will be transformed into a primary care centre for local residents."
	That sounds sensible: the swimming pool is to be used by the local community and a new health facility will be in situ for the new community being built in Stratford.
	But there appear to be some problems. The Olympic aquatics centre was to have had a community leisure and fitness facility built next to it and linked to it. The London borough of Newham—and, to a lesser extent, the London borough of Tower Hamlets—had pledged financial support to build this important community facility. Such a centre would provide local communities with additional access to much-needed sport and fitness facilities. But I understand that these proposals may have been dropped, and that this legacy proposal, with the potential to improve the health of the local community and widen its access to sports facilities, appears to have been abandoned.
	The aquatics centre, which was intended to be the landmark Olympic venue, is now to be the only swimming pool of its size in the western world in recent memory to have been built without community use as part of the scheme. Sadly, it has also emerged even more recently that the health centre will not materialise. Instead of a permanent athletes medical centre, we are to receive a temporary facility, to be built for the games and demolished afterwards. And the stadium! This field of dreams still does not have any post-2012 tenants who can work with the community to provide affordable multi-use facilities. Unfortunately, it now seems too late for it to benefit from the interest expressed many months ago by an excellent local premier league side—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Thank you.
	The international broadcast and press centre, a key legacy commitment to boost a growing telecommunications and information technology industry, also appears to be facing an uncertain future. Potentially, this project has the scale and impact to deliver a legacy promise of transformation. It would be an immeasurable loss of opportunity if it were not retained to be used as a catalyst for sustainable high-tech industry. Just as ominous are the indications not only that the athletes' village is being further downsized, with more athletes sharing fewer apartments, but that the private sector financing for this key part of the project now seems to have dried up. Government funding now seems crucial to the project.
	In Newham alone, we have more than 20,000 families on the housing waiting list, and more than 5,000 families housed in expensive temporary accommodation, often making it impossible for people to work and to pay their rent, as they are reliant on benefits to keep a roof over their heads. I would like to press the Minister to consider intervention to ensure that after the games, we use the athletes village to alleviate some of the desperate housing need in the area, and to provide a genuinely mixed-use development of family homes. It would be a very positive move if the new Homes and Communities Agency could take an active role in the funding and design of the Olympic village to ensure community benefit from a significant build of new and potentially affordable housing on site.
	There are other legacy opportunities that are not building-based, and I congratulate the Government on investing in the local employment and training framework, which has provided skills and employment to thousands of people. I am told that 24 per cent. of workers employed on the Olympic park site now originate from one of the five host boroughs.

Lyn Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I support that proposal. Being a local girl who grew up in Newham, I recall benefiting from a field study trip to a little place called Maldon in Essex. It was my very first time away from home, at the age of 10, and I can say that it was a life-changing experience. I have not often been back to Essex since, but perhaps I should.
	It seems to me that the current Olympic budget is modest for an event that would help to improve the life chances of the poorest Londoners—the 40 per cent. of London's children who live in poverty. It is modest in view of the relief it could bring to thousands of families living in temporary accommodation, modest in that it could upskill millions of citizens in London and its neighbours, creating prosperity for communities, modest for improving the health of a community of people who die earlier than their neighbours, and modest for re-energising the nation in 2012, boosting young people's interest in sport and reminding the globe's travellers of what an amazing place London is to visit.
	The Government and the Olympic Delivery Authority have worked tirelessly to ensure that the budget is managed and remains at a sustainable level. The Government are right to be mindful of the need for responsible spending, particularly at a time of financial difficulty. With the UK suffering the effects of the global economic downturn, it is clear that the budget may have to be reviewed, along with the precise design and make-up of the Olympic park and venues. But this review has to be balanced.
	To host the second London austerity games, as some are already suggesting, would betray not only the ethos and vision of the Singapore bid, but the vision and the hope that is based on the opportunity to regenerate east London and its surrounding areas. By correctly implementing the regeneration ethos of the Singapore bid, east London can be changed from an area of relatively poor health and high unemployment to a community based on skills, aspiration and healthy activity. The Government have worked hard towards achieving that goal to date, but I would urge them to redouble their efforts and approach the current funding difficulties with the same vigour and determination as my constituent, Christine Ohuruogu, at the finish line in Beijing.
	My constituents, who continue to endure the disruption that the seven-day-a-week construction inevitably causes and who have seen local residents and businesses forced to relocate, not only deserve legacy commitments in exchange for that disruption and for their enthusiastic support for the project, but need them to be delivered to allow them to break free of the deprivation that holds back the dreams of so many. They should be allowed the new housing, new sports facilities, cleaner and greener environment and the wider increased job opportunities that the legacy has the potential to offer.
	I end my contribution—I do not often do this—by quoting a passage from one of my own speeches made a couple of weeks after the Olympic bid was won. I said that if the Olympic games failed to benefit—benefit, not displace—the people I have just spoken about, the games would have been a failed opportunity and a failed investment. I believe that that statement has stood the test of time.

John Whittingdale: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—not just because we learned of her life-changing experience when she visited my constituency, but because she made some important points. I shall return to one or two of them later. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) on organising this debate. It is good to see so many Members wishing to participate; I shall endeavour not to detain the House for too long.
	The Olympic games have been an easy target in the past and there has been a lot of negative coverage in the media. I hope that that is now changing. I have to admit that, as the Secretary of State pointed out, the Select Committee was unduly pessimistic about our chances in Beijing. I acknowledge that we got that wrong and I send my congratulations to all our athletes on a magnificent performance in Beijing. I would also like to congratulate the Chinese—something that happens less often in this place—on putting on a fantastic Olympic games. They set a standard that we will have to work very hard to reach. As the Mayor of London told my Select Committee a few weeks ago, we may not be in a position to spend quite as much on the games as the Chinese, but we are endeavouring to produce a "cosier" games. That is something that we can look forward to.
	I have no doubt that the games will be a great success. They will provide a fantastic spectacle for people in this country, and a further platform for our athletes to demonstrate their prowess. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey pointed out, the real objective on which we should focus is the legacy, and that will be very hard to achieve. Not many previous games have achieved great success in legacy terms.
	The Select Committee visited Seoul, which hosted the games some years ago. The facilities there were wonderful, but most stood empty. There was a vast swimming complex where just a few people were swimming up and down the lanes, and there were running tracks that were barely used. We also visited Athens, which, if anything, was even more depressing: weeds were growing on the running tracks, and some of the sites were in an appalling state of disrepair. The Greeks were frank with us, admitting that they had been so fixated on completing the work in time for the games that they had not really thought about what would happen to the facilities afterwards. As the Select Committee has said, and as I think the Government have recognised, it is essential to take account of legacy use right from the start, when the facilities are being planned.
	The Committee concluded in its most recent report that both the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and the Olympic Delivery Authority were doing pretty well. They are, I believe, further ahead than previous organising committees have been, and the International Olympic Committee has been impressed by the amount that has already been achieved. As for the legacy, I want to discuss three aspects of it: the "hard legacy", sporting participation, and tourism—a subject whose importance my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey rightly stressed, although in my view we are falling far short of what is potentially achievable.
	The "hard legacy" was always going to be difficult. We are building a flagship Olympic stadium at a cost of half a billion pounds. In other Olympic cities, such venues have subsequently become national stadiums where national football competitions take place: they become the prestige venues. Of course, we already have one of those, on the other side of London, and it is unrealistic to believe that the Olympic stadium will be able to compete with Wembley. I must say, though—without wishing to upset the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—that it is disappointing that no premier league club has said publicly that it is at least willing to consider the Olympic stadium as its future home. That would transform it. We shall have to work very hard to ensure that it continues to be used as it should, given the amount of money that is being invested in it. Perhaps more thought should have been given at the design stage to how that was to be achieved.
	The hon. Member for West Ham rightly referred to the aquacentre. At a cost of £300 million—although the candidate file predicted that it would cost £73 million—it will be the country's premier swimming competition venue. That will be terrific, but it is disappointing that more has not been done to ensure its leisure use. It is all very well for national swimming competitions to take place there, but I suspect that the constituents of the hon. Member for West Ham would rather have a pool where their children could enjoy themselves at weekends. If leisure facilities are being cut back, that is a shame, and poses the danger that the aquacentre will not be used as we would all like it to be.
	I am also concerned about another project mentioned by the hon. Member for West Ham, the establishment of an international broadcasting centre and main press centre. We have not been told exactly how much that will cost, although we fear that it too may prove to be more expensive than initially forecast. However, it does provide an opportunity.
	This is not just a vast warehouse; it will be a highly technologically equipped warehouse, with a potential for later use by the creative and media industries. I know that the mayor of Hackney and others in that part of London have ambitions for it, believing that it could become a media centre bringing income and employment to the area. I was reassured when the Select Committee was told that it was not true that it was likely to end up as a supermarket distribution centre. We have also been told that reports that it will be a temporary venue to be dismantled later are not correct. Again, I hope that thought will be given to its future use, and that the ambitious plans for its appeal to the media industries will not be dismissed. It would be a great shame if it, too, became a vast empty building sitting in east London.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey mentioned shooting. It is probably too late to revisit the debate about whether Bisley was a possible venue, although I still find it extraordinary that a world-class shooting centre should be ruled out on the basis that the road might not be good enough for the spectators, or that it was a bit too far away. The Select Committee was disappointed about that.
	I was delighted to hear from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) about the inspiration gained by the young people of Greenwich from knowing that they are engaging in sport on an Olympic site. I do not discount that: I am sure that it is a motivating factor for them to know that they are playing in the place where an Olympic competition will shortly be held. Nevertheless, it is extremely disappointing that all the shooting facilities that will be built in Greenwich will then be taken down, and that there will be no real trace of evidence that shooting ever took place there. The Select Committee continues to hope that every thought will be given to how we can use the Greenwich facilities to ensure that there is a legacy to benefit shooting, perhaps not in Greenwich but in other places.
	The real target, although it is harder, is not the hard legacy but the soft legacy: sporting participation. As far as the Committee can see, no country has achieved a permanent increase in participation as a result of hosting the Olympics. That is not to say that we should not try to be the first to do so. The Government, and indeed our original bid, laid great stress on that being the real prize if we could pull it off. However, having examined the preparations that are being made with the aim of achieving increased participation in sport, the Committee concluded that, although Sport England is apparently to invest £183 million in multi-sport community projects, it would probably have supported such projects in any event, and they would merely be rebadged in order to be associated with the Olympic games.
	The Secretary of State spoke of his ambitions for free swimming, and the money that the Government were providing, but he also said that that was always going to be a locally driven project.

John Whittingdale: I am happy to agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. I am delighted that the UK school games have been so successful. I shall say a little more about school sport in a moment, but let me say first that my local district council, having sat down and looked very closely at the figures, concluded that the introduction of free swimming for the over-60s would result in a significant increase in council tax, because the Government's money would not go nearly far enough. That is why many people think that, as in other trumpeted Government schemes such as free transport for the over-60s, local councils might end up having to pay the bill, because the Government's words exceed by a wide margin the amount of money they are prepared to put into them.
	The ambition to increase the amount of time for school sport to five hours per week is a noble one and I would be delighted if it could be achieved, but I remain concerned that we do not really know how the Government intend to go about that. If part of that extra time for sport is to come out of the school day, what will have to be dropped? If it is not to come out of the school day, but is to take place after school, we will rely hugely on the community and amateur sports clubs to deliver that. I was going to talk about the evidence my Committee received yesterday during our inquiry into licensing, but the hon. Member for Bath—who I am delighted to learn is paying such assiduous attention to our proceedings—has already made the point that licensing is just one example of the burdens on community sports clubs, which are threatening the existence of many of them. Therefore, if the Government are to look to community sports clubs to deliver their ambition, it will be necessary for them to provide further help to enable them to do that.
	The third plank of legacy—tourism—is incredibly important. It was recognised by the Government as potentially a legacy that could benefit the whole of the UK, and not just the east of London. In order to deliver that, we need to promote Britain. When the Government published their strategy for tourism, they said that VisitBritain would be the body tasked with delivering the tourism legacy. We therefore still find it inexplicable that the Government should choose this moment to cut VisitBritain's budget by 40 per cent. I hope that the Government will reconsider that and give greater priority to tourism than they have done to date so that we achieve the full tourism legacy.
	I do not, however, wish my speech to be entirely negative. I think that a great deal has been achieved. I pay tribute to LOCOG and the ODA. I have no doubt that the Olympic games will be a great success, and I hope that they will deliver a lasting legacy to this country, but if that is to be achieved, there are areas in which we should be doing more.

Kate Hoey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). The fact that so many Members still wish to speak and we have such a short time left shows that this issue should be regularly debated in Parliament, instead of us having to wait for the Opposition to call a debate on it. The public want to know what is going on. Our constituents are asking us about Olympic legacy and it is important that we have these opportunities. It is also important that when people make certain criticisms or raise points, that is not seen as them being opposed to the Olympic legacy and the Olympic ideals.
	I worked with Colin Moynihan before he was chairman of the British Olympic Association to produce, on an all-party basis, a very good document called "Raising the Bar", many of whose recommendations I am delighted that the Government are gradually introducing. Many of the matters we are discussing this afternoon can be addressed on an all-party basis, which is why it is not particularly sensible for us to be dividing on this subject this afternoon, as the votes and the wordings of motions and amendments never fully reflect the full scale of the debate.
	I want to draw a distinction in terms of the legacy of the Olympic venues, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) referred clearly in her very good speech. A part of the Olympic legacy is the park and what will happen to it. Some of the legacy planning was not done early enough, and as the economic situation gets worse, we will be in an increasingly difficult situation. We clearly won the Olympic bid before the Beijing games on the basis of the legacy. Some people now probably wish that word had never been mentioned, because it is being used all the time. For me, the "legacy" does not mean just a fantastic Olympic games for the participating athletes; we take that for granted. I also think we should not even be thinking of trying to model ourselves on Beijing. We should, as far as possible, get back to the ideals of sport for its own sake. Of course, the athletes will make lots of money—the very successful ones will make huge sums. The broadcasters will also make money, and the International Olympic Committee will make a fortune out of the London games, but, ultimately, it is about delivering a good sports programme in good conditions. I am confident that LOCOG will do that very well, and that the Olympic Delivery Authority will make sure that the buildings are completed in time—even if it costs huge sums of extra money and that money comes from the contingency fund. The necessary amount will be found. The Olympic games will take place in 2012 no matter what happens to the economy.
	I agreed to take on the advisory job on the sporting legacy for London for the new Mayor of London because I believe that the legacy, in terms of the participation of Londoners—I am speaking here as a London MP—is what has been sorely missed out. There has been no planning and there has been no joined-up working on it. Some very good things are happening in all our boroughs that Members could talk about. Excellent partnerships are taking place, and there is a huge opportunity to work with the governing bodies. I particularly welcome Sport England's emphasis on "all sport plans", because, if they are carried through properly, they will address the problem in areas of London, such as my constituency, where substantial numbers of young people from black and ethnic minorities have not been participating for a variety of reasons. That will have to be built into the all sport plan, which is where local communities will increasingly have to look to get their funding. This ambition can be achieved.
	Londoners are paying a little bit extra, although I know that Scotland has its problems in terms of what it will get out of this, as does Northern Ireland. On Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister for the Olympics, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State to stop referring to "Great Britain", as that term excludes a substantial part of the United Kingdom. The name of the team should be Team UK. I have made that point to the BOA since my time as Sports Minister. I understand that Team GB might sound better, but it would not take much effort to start talking about Team UK, and we must stop referring to Great Britain. This is a games for the whole of the United Kingdom. Londoners are, however, paying a little bit extra.

Kate Hoey: I am interested in the legacy benefits for the sport of shooting. The legacy benefits of having it at Woolwich would be absolutely nil.
	I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister for the Olympics to the concern about equestrianism. As I understand it, the modern pentathlon does not need to use either of the equestrian venues, which has been the reason given. It is not too late to reconsider that—I think that we should.
	I am obviously going to upset a few Members today, but I have particular responsibility for the grass-roots legacy of the Olympics. None of it is rocket science. We all know what is needed: more and better coaching and joined-up working involving groups such as school clubs and community clubs. Before the previous Sports Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), stands up and shouts too, I should say that he has done a great deal to work towards that.
	Most of us in the Chamber are concerned about the same things. We want young people to have opportunities to participate, and we want those who have a talent to be picked up, helped and supported so that they can aspire to be an Olympian with a gold medal. However, there is still a huge gap in London that nobody is really thinking about—the facilities gap. Facilities are not funded in any joined-up way. Swimming pool after swimming pool has closed, including two just the other week in Redbridge. There is no plan to create new swimming pools, and if we do not show that we will get money for pools in the long term, we will lose a great deal of the inspiration that the Olympics will bring to many young people.
	The challenge is that we sometimes have to say that sport cannot deliver everything. Because we have the Olympics and everyone is so excited about it, there is a tendency to think that sport can change everything in our society. Of course it can have an enormously positive effect on people's lives. It can be fun, and people playing sport can achieve personal development and health benefits, but there is an awful lot to be done by other people and through other interventions. Sport is not a magic solution to the world's problems, or even to the problems of our society. It can play a vital role in education, tackling crime, social cohesion and the other things that we see every day in our constituencies, but we need other interventions such as those by physical education and specialist teachers, of whom we are seeing more. We need people with knowledge and experience of working with families and with young people at risk to use sport, perhaps along with other measures, to deal with crime and help social cohesion initiatives.
	As I said earlier, this is not rocket science. Everyone says the same thing, but it is interesting that people's views about how it should be done, and who should be responsible for delivering and paying for the work, often differ once we get into the details. That is part of the problem, because the detail is not very sexy and exciting. It is about the hard work that goes in, with small groups doing good things. With just a little extra money, those groups can expand what they do and we can put things right across London.
	The legacy document will be practical and have one simple target: to increase participation in sport and physical activity in London. That will not be easy. As others have said, no other Olympics has increased participation in sport. If we want a different Olympics, we have to do that. The plan that will be launched in the new year will not be a wish list for sport. It will be ambitious but realistic, costed and, most importantly, achievable.
	The matters that we will cover in the plan are no secret to anybody—facilities, access, people and structures. They always need readdressing all over the country, but they require investment. There will be investment through the Mayor's fund and the London Development Agency, but all the local authorities in London need to work together and work closely with the Government. I am happy to meet the Sports Minister, as I already have, because we can make a lot of things happen in London. However, London cannot always be treated like the rest of the country. There are 33 London boroughs that all have different ways of working. If we are to get co-operation between them, it must be led and directed by the Mayor with the support of the Government.
	I am confident that, despite all the financial difficulties, we can get the private sector involved. We have done that very well, although I am still worried that we do not have the money for elite athletes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough referred. We have to get that, and I do not want to see a plan, for example, for the men's Paralympic basketball team to be funded but not the women's because they did not get a medal. That would be wrong.
	I ask the Minister for the Olympics to please ensure that we have an opportunity for another debate soon. May I also ask her about an advert that suggests that we might be able to save £50,000? I see that on 20 October, the Government advertised for an Olympic speechwriter at the cost of £50,000 a year. I presume that that was some kind of spoof, because I cannot believe that we are spending £50,000 a year on that.
	We will have a wonderful Olympic games, but we have three and a half years to show that we can really make a difference to participation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I inform Members that there are approximately 25 minutes left for Back-Bench contributions? If they can do the maths, everybody might get in.

Bob Neill: I shall be as brief as I hope I naturally am. I have some brief points to make as a London Member. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on securing this important debate. A lot of valuable contributions have been made, and I take on board what has been said by other London Members. However, I have a particular perspective on legacy as an outer London MP.
	We will not get the direct benefits that some other boroughs will. My concern, since my council tax payers in Bromley are contributing along with other Londoners, and are willing to do so, is that they get a fair share of such legacy as there is. That applies in two ways, the first of which is the sporting legacy, about which we are concerned on a number of fronts. First, there is real concern that, for reasons that have already been mentioned, the need to move money away from lottery funding of local and community sport to bail out some elements of the Olympic budget will have a bad impact on many small sports clubs in constituencies such as mine.
	Secondly, there is the disappointment that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) alluded to: Crystal Palace, an iconic sporting venue in south London, does not seem likely to figure in the Olympic plans. We genuinely believe that that is a missed opportunity to regenerate what has always been south London's great sporting sub-regional centre. I hope that even today, even if it is a training facility, something can be done to give some legacy to people in south London, who are contributing to the Olympic effort and want it to succeed as much as anyone.
	The third concern that many in my constituency have is economic. Often, the large contractors come with their own established supply chains. Many businesses in south-east London are small and medium-sized enterprises. When I talk to local business men at the chambers of commerce and so on, they express concern that they are finding it difficult to get into the supply chains, much of which are predetermined by large principal contractors. I hope that the Government will ensure that that is borne carefully in mind. Those people want a fair crack of the whip and to see some of the action both in economic terms and in direct sporting paybacks. Otherwise, given that many of them will not be able to get to the games physically, there will be sadness that less sporting opportunity, not more, is available in places such as Bromley.
	My second point is on free swimming, which I make no apology for returning to. I wrote to the Secretary of State about nine days ago, and I am sure that the Minister will gently remind the Department that we would like a reply. Because of the demographics of Bromley, where some 17 per cent. of the population are over 60, the shortfall that Bromley council tax payers would face is £120,000. That is an awful lot of money and a significant disincentive. Ironically, about 30,000 over-60s from my borough and the surrounding ones already swim in pools in Bromley. Not only is there the disincentive of a funding shortfall, but the scheme is not flexible enough to allow Bromley to concentrate such resources as might be made available on those who do not swim, instead of having to give a blanket subsidy, including to those who are happy to swim and do so at the moment. Perhaps the Minister could examine the operation of that scheme, because it seems to involve an unintended and perverse consequence.
	My third point is about sport in schools. Bromley has very good school sport, and I accept that work is being done in this area, but more remains to be done. For example, we know that about 2.1 million children across the country are still not involved in competitive sport. I therefore welcome the Mayor of London's statement that he intends, in his revisions of the London plan, to place a particular premium on protecting school sports fields. I generally welcome the approach that Mayor Johnson has adopted towards working constructively with LOCOG—the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games—and the other Olympic agencies to ensure that we deliver an imaginative and festive Olympics, within a budget capable of being constrained and met by us all. I say that because, as the Minister will know, Londoners still have a potential contingent liability if we do not get things right. I am sure that we all want to work together to ensure that we do get them right.
	Finally, I wish to discuss an overlap between the sporting legacy and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about the tourism feature. I do so at the risk of incurring the wrath of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). Many people in south-east London are concerned that although the equestrian events in Greenwich park will obviously bring a sporting interest—I do not seek to diminish that—there might be a risk of damage to the park, which is a world heritage site. I put this as mildly and gently as I can, because it has been flagged up in a number of well-researched publications. People are concerned about a potential perverse consequence. There may be a sporting advantage in holding those events at Greenwich, but without cast-iron guarantees that the park will not be done lasting harm, the tourist legacy, which is so important, might be damaged in the longer term. I hope that the Government will make absolutely sure that nothing happens to damage that, because Greenwich park is of huge value to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents and to people from surrounding areas who come to enjoy it. Nothing should happen to prejudice that key open-air space for people in our part of south-east London.
	With those deliberately short remarks, I, like all in the Chamber, again commend the Olympic project to hon. Members. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) for securing the debate. I hope that those issues that affect outer London as well as the Olympic boroughs will not be overlooked.

Andy Reed: I am sure that you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, the frustration felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the lack of time remaining in this debate. So, in conclusion— [Laughter.] I wanted to raise a number of issues, but I shall boil them down to just a couple.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) was in the Chamber just a few moments ago. I was interested in Olympics before we even bid, and my hon. Friend and I toured around visiting Ministers and others to try to convince them to bid in the first place. The Olympics are a great pleasure, and I declare an interest as somebody who has been involved right from the start.
	The only reason why I ever wanted to see the Olympics come to the UK was the soft legacy, both for elite and community sport. Probably, 2012 will be the point at which I finally stop playing rugby—my wife will be delighted to learn that I have set a deadline at last—and so I will be one of the casualties of 2012, but it is true to say that the only reason why we need the games to succeed is to ensure that that soft legacy is provided in 2012. The most important measurement will be done in 2016; it will not be where we come in the medals table in 2012. Of course, I want us to come fourth and to do better, as well as to increase our participation rates, but the real measurement will be in 2016, and it will assess whether we have sustained that growth and interest that comes after 2012.
	The first of the issues from my original list on which I want to concentrate is the £100 million—it will now probably be about £79 million, if we genuinely do have the additional money from the lottery. The problem remains that by December, UK Sport will have to start to allocate the funding for the remaining four years. Everybody knows that the reason why we did so well in the Beijing Olympics was that no compromise was made. The athletes did their bit, but so did all the support staff—the people who surround the athletes. It is only when no compromise is made in every part of the preparation for an Olympic games that those involved make the difference that ensures that they get a gold, sliver or bronze, or even come fourth. We got lots of people into finals. Our athletics team did okay, because many more of our athletes got into finals than it was thought would get there, but the difference between winning and losing at that level is tenths or even hundredths of a second. A no-compromise approach for 2012 means that for the next four years we must get the same level of commitment from the Government and from all those other people. The reality is that a shortfall remains. The medal hopes scheme, which has been explained to me, does not plug that gap as far as I can see. We need the necessary level of certainty to be provided as quickly as possible.
	I have not got time to go into all the problems that exist with current scheme and the fact that UK Sport does not necessarily have many rights that it can put out into the market. I simply urge the Government—I hope that I am being helpful in doing so—to ensure that there is something to take to the Treasury to ensure that the situation is sorted out. I was involved in trying to secure the £300 million in the first place, so I am delighted that we have got it, but this other money is crucial. How sad it would be if, by Christmas, we were cutting programmes after we have all just celebrated some fantastic victories.
	Many of those victories originated in Loughborough. I have mentioned often enough the contribution that Loughborough makes, so I can skip over it now and not upset the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but it is in places such as Loughborough that the nations and regions will benefit from what is happening in 2012. Many of the leading nations have visited and have subsequently made decisions; I hope that a nation such as Japan will perhaps base its team at Loughborough. What a fantastic cultural Olympiad that would bring—an event with flavour and a difference. I believe that about 150 international athletes are on campus at Loughborough university, so bringing an international flavour would be fantastic.
	The other area that I wish to discuss is volunteering. I have the honour of chairing the Strategic Partnership for Volunteers in Sport, which is the national voice that speaks up on behalf of the 4 million to 5 million sports volunteers who ensure that community sport is delivered week in, week out right across our nation. Without community sport and, in particular, without those volunteers, many of the aspirations about which many hon. Members have spoken just would not be realised. We may sometimes say platitudes about the value of volunteers—we all say that we know how valuable they are—but if we look around in our communities, we see the contribution that people make, week in, week out, to their community sports clubs. That is absolutely phenomenal, and without such people, none of this would happen.
	I would like to say a lot about nations, regions and strategies. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics knows, I am very disappointed with the legacy action plan—I have written to her several times over the past few years and have tried to hold meetings about it. However, I have got to the stage where I do not care about whether strategies look good or how many action plans there are; we just have to get on with it in the nations and regions. The reality is that not much new money will be coming our way, but we have many existing schemes to work with, so rather than just moaning and whinging, it is down to each of us, in our own constituencies, nations and regions, to get on with delivering the soft legacy. It is a tall order, but because of our great sporting tradition, the army of volunteers and the people totally and passionately committed to sport in this country, we can be the first nation to deliver a soft legacy.
	I urge the Minister to respond to some of the points raised today, especially the one about the £100 million; the issue is potentially a disaster. Many jobs in my constituency depend on funding for elite sport through the English Institute of Sport at Loughborough university, and it is also in the nation's best interests to sort the matter out as quickly as possible.

David Amess: I had the honour of chairing the Committee stage of the London Olympics Act 2006, when the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) was a Sports Minister. I congratulate all those responsible for bringing the Olympic games to this country, and I very much hope that we will all be alive in 2012 to enjoy them. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) on initiating this debate and the positive way in which he made his points. I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about this being an important matter, and it is a shame that it has been left to the Opposition to raise it.
	Issues have been raised about who closed sports fields and what left-wing councils thought about children playing games. However, I was here when the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was debated, and I do not recall unanimous support from Labour Members for the lottery. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, John Major, for the way that the lottery has turned out. There is no doubt that the money channelled into encouraging young people to enter the Olympic games has paid off.
	It is a shame that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) is no longer in his place, because I agreed with everything that he said about football. Some premiership footballers are overpaid and under-perform, and it is an absolute disgrace that we did not have a team in the Olympic games—we must have one in 2012. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) will know that I am a West Ham boy, and I am very proud that some of the Olympic games will take place in West Ham. As a product of St. Bonaventure's grammar school, I endorse entirely all her remarks about West Ham's legacy opportunities.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey had the opportunity to visit Southend and will agree with all my points. Southend wants to be at the heart of the Olympic games celebrations. Although we are just on the cusp of London, the games present us with a real opportunity, and I was glad to hear what the Minister for the Olympics said about the opening and closing ceremonies. Southend has the longest pier in the world, but she will be aware that we have had three fires and that we are desperately engaged in its restoration. Sir John Betjeman once said:
	"The pier is Southend, Southend is the pier".
	It is a grade II listed building. We do not need to compete with Beijing—we will not need to bus people to the various events, because they will flock there in their thousands and millions to enjoy the activities—but will the Minister help Southend restore the pier? The opening and closing ceremonies could be a spectacular opportunity for it.
	The Secretary of State mentioned swimming and spoke about gentlemen swimming once a month and ladies twice a month. I am delighted to say that a swimming pool will be built in Garon park, with 95 per cent. of the cost borne by Southend council tax payers. I am very grateful for the support from Sport England, but we would like a little more. The swimming pool will be used as part of the training ground, and I am very pleased that some Paralympic events will take place there.
	I am delighted that Essex county council has splendidly grasped the opportunity to participate in the Olympic games. The biking event will take place in an adjoining constituency, and Southend council—my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey mentioned this when he opened the debate—is very concerned about the tourism legacy.
	I am delighted that Southend council has had discussions with Newham council about having a sort of river-bus service between our two towns. If there is something that we should celebrate, it is the River Thames. This is a wonderful opportunity for us fully to utilise the river.
	I had a very long speech prepared, but I shall simply say that we have two living examples of sporting prowess in Southend. Katrina Hughes, an 18-year-old product of the excellent Westcliff high school for girls, is one of the elite athletes in sailing. Of course, Mark Foster, who was educated and born in Southend, was waving and carrying the flag at the opening ceremony.
	The Secretary of State tried to savage his opposite number, but I did not feel that he was entirely successful. He will recall from when he was a member of the Select Committee on Health our inquiry into obesity. Trying to engage more people in sport and activities must be another lasting legacy.
	We will not argue about who was responsible for bringing the Olympic games to London in 2012. I congratulate everyone involved in that process. We want to ensure that we grasp this golden opportunity to celebrate the sporting prowess that we have in the UK. Let us encourage all our young people to get cracking to ensure that they are on the rostrum in 2012, beating the 47 medals that we got in the Olympic games this year.

Hugh Robertson: I have always thought that one of the most striking things about the Olympics is that the term "Olympic legacy" means so many different things to so many different people. Today's debate has entirely reflected that and, I hope, has highlighted the need for a further debate in Government time on these important issues.
	During the course of the afternoon, we heard from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—Bath is the host of the UK school games—and the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who spoke rightly of her pride in the fact that her borough will host the Olympics. We share that pride.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and I congratulate him on his report. In addition, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) deserves to be congratulated both on her initial report, "Raising the Bar", which, as she correctly said, formed the basis for the development of sports policy, and on the work she does in London: we look forward to her report in the new year, and the action that will follow.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke very well about the Olympic legacy for his constituents, while the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) raised the important issue of the missing £100 million. He also spoke about volunteering, and I thank him for his work in that regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) spoke absolutely correctly about the impact that the lottery has had in this area since it was introduced in the mid-1990s. He also described the legacy for his constituency, with the restoration of the pier at Southend. Finally, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke briefly but well about swimming and branding.
	Right at the outset, it is worth saying that there are substantial areas of the Olympic project where we as a party support the Government. We share the Olympic Minister's determination to deliver London 2012 on time and within the main public sector funding package of £9.3 billion, and it is important that the wider Olympic movement understands that. In the current financial situation, there can be no further public money.
	I believe that that understanding is important for our national reputation for delivering major infrastructure projects. It will also enable us to scale down the Olympic budget in such a way that parts of the world that have never dared bid for a games in previous years can have the confidence to do so in 2020, 2024 and beyond. However, at the core of the motion is the question of sports legacy, and I pay tribute to the report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that has driven this debate.
	London's pledge to enable young people through sport was at the heart of our bid. Pitched to an audience of former Olympians and sports administrators, it is probably the single biggest reason London is the host city in 2012. The challenge before us today is to fulfil that promise to the International Olympic Committee, and to do whatever is necessary to enable us to benefit from the surge in enthusiasm, interest and inspiration generated from London 2012.
	What needs to be done? As always with sport, the task can be divided into three main areas—elite and high-performance sports, school sports and mass participation. Let us take the elite and high-performance area first, and there are three main issues that need to be tackled. The first is the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Loughborough—the missing £100 million from the private sector that was promised by the Prime Minister in his March 2006 Budget when he was still Chancellor, but not yet delivered.
	I always thought that that was going to be an extraordinarily difficult commitment to fulfil. Even before the current economic crisis, LOCOG, the BOA, sport governing bodies and individual athletes were scouring the market looking for private sponsorship. I always doubted that a private company would pick up what many consider to be a Government funding shortfall.
	However, UK Sport planned, perfectly reasonably, for the full £600 million. As the hon. Member for Loughborough said, it would be disastrous if, in the aftermath of our most successful Olympics ever and before our own home Olympics, there had to be cuts in elite athlete training programmes. In my view, the Prime Minister's promise must be kept, and that amount paid in full.
	The second issue affecting elite and high-performance sport is the funding of the new National Anti-Doping Organisation. That has not been mentioned this afternoon, but I do not think that any hon. Member, of any party, would say anything other than that doping arguably represent the single greatest threat to Olympic sport. It is vital, particularly for us as the host nation, that we have the highest possible anti-doping standards in place.
	The Conservative party has always argued for a fully independent anti-doping agency, as highlighted some years ago in the cross-party report from the hon. Member for Vauxhall. I am delighted that the Government have reversed their previous opposition to such a body, and I urge them to agree the necessary funding as a priority. While they are about it, the logical next step is to put the sport dispute resolution service, Sport Resolutions, on an independent statutory basis to give it the teeth that it needs to tackle sports disputes.
	The third element in this area is the legacy for individual Olympic sports.

Hugh Robertson: The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) jumps to his feet at that, but it is difficult to be absolutely clear about that legacy in advance of the publication of the KPMG report due out next month. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said earlier, it would be a tragedy if each individual Olympic sport did not receive a tangible benefit from London 2012. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with that.
	If there is to be a legacy for school sport from London 2012, it has to be in two areas: more pupils should have the opportunity to play sport at school, a point the Secretary of State touched on at length, and, crucially, fewer of them should give up when they leave school at 16. It is to our shame that over successive years—indeed, over successive Governments—the UK has had one of the worst post-school drop-out rates in Europe.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Youth Sport Trust, and completely support the drive for more competitive sport in school, but four areas need greater attention. The first, which we must make an absolute priority—almost a crusade—is to reach the 10 per cent. of children who do not have the basic two hours of sport at present. There can be no excuse whatever for that, particularly as 78 per cent. of schools already provide it as part of their in-curriculum PE lessons. We must put that right.
	Secondly, we must take a more considered look at sports provision in primary schools. One of the flaws in the existing strategy is that it concentrates too much—at least in my view—on secondary provision, by which stage it is too late. If we can enthuse pupils at primary school it is likely that the love of sport and exercise will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
	The third area is inspiration, which is a constant theme when people talk about London 2012. There is an important role in that regard for the British Olympic Association as the guardians of olympianism. We need to inspire all 450 school sport partnerships with the spirit of 2012. I want Olympians in every school and school games in every county. It is an organisational rather than a funding challenge, and the results can be spectacular, as those of us who saw the Kent school games this year are aware. I was lucky enough to open the games with Kelly Holmes. Kids from every school sport partnership in the county took part in a competitive county sports day; it was fantastic.
	Finally, there is mass participation, or community sport, which is central to the London 2012 vision and has been the area of greatest concern, as was highlighted in the Select Committee's report. Cuts to lottery funding, constant changes of strategy at Sport England and increased bureaucratic overload have contributed to the damning statistic that in a decade of lottery funding there has been no meaningful increase whatever in the number of people playing sport.
	The solution is relatively simple. First, the Government need to restore the lottery to its four original pillars, correcting the situation whereby the amount of lottery funding distributed to sport fell from £397 million in 1998, when the Secretary of State was a special adviser, to £209 million last year—a cut of nearly 50 per cent. Once that funding is restored, the second thing is to ensure that the correct delivery mechanisms are in place to drive up participation rates. I shall cheer up the Secretary of State by saying that I entirely support the new strategic direction of Sport England—to deliver increases in mass participation through the sport governing bodies—although I have to tell him that was exactly what we proposed at the last general election, and it is exactly what was in the cross-party "Raising the Bar" report some years ago; I only regret that it took so long to bring it about. It is unforgivable that Sport England, the Government agency involved in delivering that key pledge, has been without a chairman for more than a year. The chief executive has done a fantastic job, and we all congratulate her, but she should never have had to deal with all those things on her own.
	Finally, we need to encourage and incentivise local communities to engage in London 2012. A good start would be for many other local authorities to emulate the approach taken by the London Mayor and the hon. Member for Vauxhall in ring-fencing community sports funding in the London Development Agency budget and spearheading a drive to target grass-roots sport.
	Four months ago in Switzerland, the International Olympic Committee told me it wanted four things from a host nation Government: strategic direction, a budget, security and an identifiable legacy. Our motion and the debate have concentrated on the last of those—the legacy. It was the key commitment of the Singapore bid and, as highlighted in the Select Committee report, it remains the most difficult of those objectives to fulfil.
	The Government can react to the debate in one of two ways. Either they can try to claim that everything is perfect and that nothing needs to be done, or they can acknowledge the central feeling on both sides of the House that a certain amount has been done, but that much more needs to be done if we are to deliver a really meaningful mass participation sports legacy from London 2012.

Tessa Jowell: I should like to join everybody else in paying tribute to the quality of the debate. I welcome the fact that we have had this debate, and hope that we will have many more in the period—a little short of four years—ahead. One of the most important things about the Olympics is that we, both as parliamentarians and in all the other responsibilities that we exercise, are guardians of an event that it is an extraordinary privilege to host. It will create memories that will last for ever in the lives of all the people whom we represent. We will never have quite the same opportunity at any other point in our lives. As I say, I welcome this debate, which has been inspired by the performance of our Olympians and Paralympians in Beijing.
	I had the great privilege of spending yesterday with the British cycling team—the coaches, the performance director and the psychiatrist—in Manchester, and I am sure that the whole House would like to wish them all the very best for the cycling world cup, which takes place at the weekend. I saw the velodrome doing what it was intended to do—providing a world-class training facility for the best cyclists in the world. It is being used by community organisations of all ages, including an over-50s cycling club and children. I think that I am right to say that it is the most heavily used velodrome in the whole of Europe. When Chris Hoy launched the plans for our velodrome in Stratford park, he said that he believed that it would be the best in the world, so we need no amplification of our ambition. Despite the tendency to resort to our usual habits, it is important that we maintain cross-party agreement on how we manage, deliver and develop the games. That is important for any event that spans a Parliament, and that relates to my point about looking after something on behalf of the whole nation, rather than a particular political party.
	Five legacy promises were set out in the legacy action plan, which has had a bit of knocking this afternoon. It is a fact that investment is being made in sports participation and London transport. The investment ensures, almost counter-cyclically, that £6 billion of contracts are regionalised, as far as possible, and relate to areas beyond London. That is all part of a clear commitment not to accept the inevitable about the Olympics, as has been the fate of other cities, but to drive the Olympic ambition in the direction that we want.
	We have big legacy ambitions, and one of the reasons our bid was so passionate had to do with the potential for legacy and the change that would occur before the games took place. When we won the bid, the games were seven years away. The delivery of legacy is complex, but the delivery structure is clear. The responsibility is shared between: my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who is the Minister with responsibility for Sport; the Mayor, who has some responsibility with regard to the Olympic park; and the London Development Agency. There is also a cross-Government legacy delivery responsibility, covering all other relevant Departments. The five boroughs also have an absolutely critical responsibility to work with Government to ensure that the Olympic park does not become an island of regeneration, with the area at its edges remaining unchanged. The Olympic boroughs, and my hon. Friends who represent them, share a passionate commitment to ensuring that that is not the case.
	Our ambition is clear, and it focuses on two of the five legacy promises—the two that, beyond all others, define what we are trying to achieve. The first relates to the regeneration of east London. That has been raised by a number of hon. Members, so I shall touch quickly on specific points. Yes, community use is designed into the aquatic centre and, yes, discussion will go on with the boroughs about their later proposal for a leisure and fitness facility. Yes, work is under way to ensure that once the Olympic stadium comes down to its legacy size, it will be a vibrant centre of sport and activity—not just for young people in the Olympic park, but for those from beyond.
	In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made a particular point about affordable housing. Some 30 per cent. of the housing in the first stage will be affordable. There will not be a polyclinic at the first stage, but there will be one as part of the second stage, as the number of homes increases to 9,000.
	The debate about the international broadcast centre and main press centre captures our dilemma perfectly: should we build what will in effect be a temporary shed, for which at the moment there is no long-term tenant, at considerable cost? Should we invest extra, at the risk of there not being a long-term tenant? Alternatively, should we stick with the original ambition that is so important for the Olympic boroughs in respect of the scope to offer up to 8,000 aspirational jobs in sunrise industries, the new and developing technologies? That is the dilemma, which we have not yet resolved. We will, of course, engage Members of Parliament, the Olympic boroughs and potential tenants in helping us resolve it.
	In response to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I should say that we are going to track local jobs. The proportion of local people working on the park is now up to 24 per cent., from 19 per cent. in the last quarter.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) are absolutely right about the importance of soft legacy and of having a sustained legacy for participation. That is why there is investment in new facilities through Building Schools for the Future and other programmes. There is a commitment to 3,000 coaches and a third of young people getting engaged in sports clubs as a first stage. There will be 1,000 young ambassadors throughout all our school sport colleges, taking to other young people, as only young people can, about the benefits and joys of sport.
	I should like to say two more things. The first is about the fraught question of shooting at Bisley, equestrianism at Greenwich and basketball. We have commissioned a report. All the venues are temporary. I spent a lot of time looking at the equestrian and shooting venues in China. We will make the decisions, but people should remember that one reason why we won the Olympics was that we agreed to bring shooting into the Olympic area and not have it at Bisley. We won because we promised a compact games. We are not operating on a blank sheet of paper and we cannot tear up past commitments; we have commitments to the International Olympic Committee and the expectations of the people in the relevant areas.
	I want to finish by saying that whatever controversy the legacy plans have generated in the House this afternoon, our approach has received praise from the IOC and from no less a quarter than the  Sydney Morning Herald, in which on 24 September the excellent Elizabeth Farrelly wrote that
	"one quality sets London 2012 apart"
	from the Sydney and other games:
	"Legacy; an intelligent, strategic approach to the morning after."
	She was referring to the morning after what will be the greatest games in Olympic memory, which will have benefits for young people and the east end for the rest of our lives.
	 Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I would like to remind the House of the ruling that the Chairman of Ways and Means gave at the start of proceedings on 12 June. As the content of the Bills on the Order Paper is similar, if not identical, it was judged to be for the convenience of the House to have a general debate to cover all six measures. However, when the House disposes of the Manchester City Council Bill, debate on the subsequent measures will be local authority specific. It would be contrary to the spirit of the original ruling to seek to conduct a generalised debate on each Bill.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to you for reminding us of that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to keep my remarks general rather than specific at this stage. When this debate was adjourned on 12 June, I was eight minutes into my remarks. Only 20 minutes of our three hours of debate on 12 June were taken up by hon. Members who are concerned about the Bills. The rest of the time was taken up by their promoters and supporters. I therefore hope that those who are impatient to move things on will ensure that the other side of the argument can be heard, and will not try to curtail the debate before that is possible.
	A number of things have happened since the last debate. The promoters have published a further statement in support of the Second Reading of the Bills, paragraph 4 of which is very partial. It says:
	"The Bills were debated on second reading on 12th June, when a number of MPs took the opportunity to speak in favour of them. At the end of the allotted period, the proceedings had not been concluded and the debate was adjourned."
	There is no reference whatever to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who made a succinct and pithy speech against the Bills, nor to my earlier remarks or the severe reservations that a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends raised in interventions. I do not know whether this further statement contravenes the conventions of the House. I hope that none of the Members present will be taken in by paragraph 4, and that they will look at the rest of the statement with a similarly jaundiced eye.
	What else has happened since our last debate? Quite a lot of things. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has become a father, and I congratulate him on that. Secondly, the pedlars resource centre has been established online at www.pedlars.info and, for the first time in this country, individual pedlars are realising that unless they get together and organise themselves, their future could be in severe jeopardy.

Christopher Chope: Obviously, I will read the detail of the report if and when it becomes available. I do not know what will be the position of these Bills in Committee, but I very much hope that their promoters will hold back until we have the evidence from Durham university, as local taxpayers' money is at stake. If as a result of the Durham university report the Government decided that national legislation was appropriate, a great deal of money could be saved for private taxpayers through rates and council taxes. The Government might even be able to legislate on the framework basis for which the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has campaigned, but we must wait and see what results from the report.

Christopher Chope: What my hon. Friend says is plain common sense, which I hope meets with the consent of almost everyone.

Greg Mulholland: May I give a practical example? Has the hon. Gentleman considered the effect on local charitable events? Every year the wonderful Otley Victorian Fayre is held in my constituency—this year it will take place on Friday 12 December—and every year there is an absolute menace from unlicensed traders selling things in the street. The council can do nothing, the police can do nothing and the organisers can do nothing, to everyone's great frustration. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if the organisers want it, if local charities want it, if the local police want it and if—in this instance—Leeds city council wants it, he should not stand in the way of those who wish to improve an event and give councils powers to regulate activity of that kind?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is on to a very good point. Indeed, I have made it in relation to my Christchurch constituency. If the Bournemouth Bill were to pass into law, if there were an issue to do with rogue trading and peddling in Bournemouth—which is hotly disputed—that activity might well transfer either to the ancient borough and market town of Christchurch, or to Wimborne, or to Poole. That is why we should, as the Minister seems to have accepted, take the opportunity to look at this on a national basis and see whether we need to make any changes within a national legislative framework.
	The Department commissioned St. Chad's college, Durham university to conduct the research, and the terms of reference stated:
	"This should be complete this autumn."
	I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will be pleased to learn that it also stated that the research would include
	"contacting all England, Wales and Scotland local authorities and trading standards as appropriate"—
	not Northern Ireland—
	"contacting street trader representative organisations and sample groups of street traders; contacting pedlar representative groups and sample groups of pedlars; contacting the police to establish numbers of pedlars certificates, costs involved in issue and problems with enforcement including knowledge of existing legislation; gathering statistics across all these organisations and from any other source, that cover complaints, enforcement activity and costs of this, numbers of certificates and licences issued and revoked with related costs and court cases and costs. Number of prosecutions of traders in the street for selling counterfeit goods and/or dangerous goods and whether they involved licensed street traders, non-licensed trading in the street, holders of pedlars certificates or people without pedlars certificates."
	I congratulate the Minister on having developed such a broad, and, I think, highly relevant and pertinent, scope for that research project. The disappointment is that we do not have any of the outcome of that research available today to inform the debate.
	In June, the Minister said that the university project would
	"consider the current position, whether the existing powers are sufficient...and what—if any—different powers would be useful to the tackling of problems relating to street trading in our towns and cities."
	He promised:
	"Should the evidence...demonstrate that there is a case for national legislation, we—"
	the Department—
	"will assess the options available to us."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 540.]

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is engaged in a circular argument. Of course, the whole essence of the issue is that a pedlar is not a street trader but one who walks from place to place and town to town with his goods on his person. Those goods will often comprise such things as balloons, yo-yos and key rings. I have received representations from Frankie Fernando, for example. He is successful in peddling key rings, as a result of which he has raised considerable sums for charity. During the recession of the late 1980s, he had three shops in London that went bust; since then, he has pulled himself up, got on his bike—to use that expression—and become a pedlar in both senses of the word. He has gone from town to town and built up a successful business. The Bill will prevent Mr. Fernando from being able to come to Bournemouth to offer his services to the people and tourists there, notwithstanding the fact that he has operated as a perfectly lawful pedlar for the best part of 20 years. It is unconscionable that my hon. Friend should promote a Bill that would outlaw that type of lawful enterprise.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend asserts, contrary to established case law and statute law, that that is what a pedlar does. If somebody goes from door to door, he can do so pursuant to a pedlar's certificate. A person can sell goods on the street pursuant to a pedlar's certificate providing that he complies with the terms of that certificate. There is a campaign of disinformation afoot to try to suggest that anybody who walks from place to place selling goods on the street—people come up to them and say, "Can I buy a balloon from you?", and they sell them a balloon, or "Can I buy a yo-yo?", and they sell them a yo-yo—is engaged in an activity tantamount to rogue street trading, and thereby undermining street traders and the role of legitimate shopkeepers, whereas that activity adds colour and vibrancy to our town centres, particularly those that are centred on tourism, and is perfectly lawful.
	In light of the way in which the joint promoters of these Bills closed down debate on the generality, I am concerned that their agenda is one of trying to be aggressive towards those who want to try to reach a compromise. As I said in the debate in June, I went to see Bournemouth borough council officials and councillors back in January to try to find a compromise that would offer a way through this. I waited for some months before I got a response. I inquired whether it might be possible to limit the scope of the Bill in some way—for example, by saying that it should apply to only a small part of Bournemouth, namely the centre. I then suggested that it could impose a much clearer restriction on a pedlar's right to sell goods if they had any wheeled vehicle with them. I made a whole series of different compromise suggestions.
	The response that eventually came back, once I had prompted it from the acting borough council solicitor, was that the trouble with such a compromise was that it would cut across the common ground of all the other Bills, which are being promoted by one group of agents. In fact, however, the individual terms of these Bills are distinct. The Bournemouth Borough Council Bill has different elements from the Reading Borough Council Bill, which we will discuss later.
	I find it depressing that, despite my best efforts to reach a compromise on the matter, the promoters of the Bill have been stonewalling. They think that might is right and that they can use their majority in the House to force the measure through. If that is going to happen, and there is going to be a similar reluctance to accept amendments when we get to Committee, or in a line-by-line debate on Report, that will be a great disservice to the people of Bournemouth and the wider community and will bring the House into disrepute.
	People outside expect us to sort out such issues in an amicable, common-sense way. In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) raised a question about what happens if the matter is displaced from Bournemouth to Wimborne. Wimborne is covered by East Dorset district council, which also covers part of my constituency. What will happen to the area covered by Christchurch borough council? Christchurch is a much more ancient borough than Bournemouth, and has a status as a market town. It has a long-established market, and it is the second or third smallest borough in the country. If there is a big problem in Bournemouth, which is hotly in dispute, the question that the promoters of the Bill have failed to address is what will happen to smaller communities outside Bournemouth if the problem is transferred. A council such as Christchurch—a town with some 40,000 citizens—is in an even weaker position to start promoting a private Bill than Bournemouth council, which is a unitary authority, and has a population of more than 200,000.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that there should be recognition of the fact that if individual Members feel in some difficulty on some of these matters, so does the Chair. It was determined at the start of the debate in June that there was sufficient similarity—if not identity, in certain cases—between the Bills for them to be taken together in debate. For good or ill, that debate has been determined, and by a significant majority, the House has approved the Second Reading of one of the Bills.
	Many of the points that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is making, as he goes into more detail, need to be thrashed out in Committee. The Chair gave a ruling at the start of today's proceedings that because we have conducted the generalised debate on the first Bill, it would not be right to raise more detailed issues—the generality of the principle and the detail—on each successive Bill.
	The House has given an opinion, and it would probably be in accordance with the wish of the House—although I am the servant of the House in this respect—that it be respected in considering the other measures. There may be slight differences between them, but the fact that they have been put together, and that the House accepted that, means that we should not be having a hugely detailed debate on each. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will bear that in mind. Today is not the end of the process, and there will, as with all private legislation, be further opportunity for discussion between the promoters and hon. Members who have concerns.

Christopher Chope: As they say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "Follow that." I do not know how I can follow it, but to summarise my point, I have no desire to elongate the debate. If we are to have a succinct debate, it is reasonable that when arguments are put forward, the promoter should respond to them. Otherwise we set a rather bad example to those outside. However, whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East wants to respond is obviously a matter for him.
	To reinforce that point, let me say that quite a lot of the questions that I have submitted in writing to Bournemouth borough council have not been answered, which causes me concern. For example, I asked the council whether it could give some evidence of the problems in Bournemouth, including the number of prosecutions and the extent of those problems, but I have received no answers; I have received just assertions, rather like the assertions in the statement issued by the promoters of the Bills. When we consider the Bills we should be guided very much on an evidential basis. If Bournemouth borough council has evidence, it should be disclosed.
	This point was treated with some mirth when I raised it earlier, but the fact that a BBC television crew went down to Bournemouth to find out the extent to which pedlars were harassing the local population but could not find any pedlars is material evidence. That is something we should be considering. With my local knowledge of Bournemouth, I think that the town centre and the Square have a very different character from the rest of Bournemouth, which includes the areas around Boscombe and even the seafront towards Bournemouth, East.
	I am concerned that the Bill is unlimited in geographical scope. The intention is to impose the same restrictions upon pedlars in the outskirts of Bournemouth, which adjoin my constituency, as in the centre of Bournemouth. In so far as any evidence has been produced in support of the case against rogue traders and unlawful pedlars in Bournemouth, it has been confined to the town centre. I hope that my hon. Friend, in responding to this debate, will say why Bournemouth borough council is not prepared to limit the scope of the Bill to the town centre.

Greg Knight: With particular respect to Bournemouth, is my hon. Friend satisfied with how the council says it is going to implement the light-touch pledge that it made to the House of Lords?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend was here when he heard the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). All I can say is that I am not satisfied with the response. About a year after the undertaking was given, I would have expected more thought to have been put into exactly how to implement it in practice. I must say that I am disappointed. It may be because my hon. Friend wanted to be succinct that he was unable to expand on the issue as much he would have liked.

Christopher Chope: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope they will be dealt with in Committee. It is traditional on Second Reading for Members to draw attention to certain points and to put down markers. That is what I am trying to do, in order to be helpful to the promoters of the Bill by giving them advance warning of some of the concerns that I and others have about its provisions.
	I also ask my hon. Friends why this Bill extends to the sale of services, because other local authority legislation does not do so. Why does this Bill allow councils to hold goods for 56 days, compared with 28 days? That is twice the limit set in existing private legislation, including in the Maidstone Act referred to earlier.

John Butterfill: Under the existing Act, a pedlar is not permitted to sell services, so it is appropriate to say that anyone who is selling services, rather than goods, should not be entitled to trade as a pedlar.

Christopher Chope: Obviously, the Minister has used the intervention as an opportunity to put that on the record. I think that it has already been put on the record in the debate in June, and that it applied to all the Bills.
	I do not want to spoil the opportunity of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East to respond to the debate, because the points that I have raised about the Bill deserve a response. I particularly hope that he will comment on the differences that I have identified between the Bournemouth Bill and some of the others. I kept back my observations about the specificity of particular points in the Bournemouth Bill compared with some of the other Bills, because I thought that it would be more appropriate to address them during the specific debate on Bournemouth than in the general debate.

Canterbury City Council Bill [ Lords] (By Order)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not quite sure to whom the right hon. Lady is alluding— [ Interruption. ] I think that the matter is now resolved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could now return to the matters in hand.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the Canterbury City Council Bill, not with any other Bills. I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman did not stray into matters that the House has already agreed are matters for the Committee stage.

Greg Knight: This specific Bill makes provision—rather oddly, in my view—for varying the level of fixed penalty depending on where in the city of Canterbury the offence took place? Has my hon. Friend received any information from the promoters as to why they feel that that is desirable? I ask him because my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) did not cover the point in his very short introduction.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is seeking to be fair-minded, but the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury during that Second Reading debate was that these people were proceeding with malice aforethought. They were not innocents who had haplessly done the equivalent of parking in the wrong spot. Nevertheless, given the long-winded process involved, it was not worthwhile to proceed against these rogue traders, for want of a better expression.
	My hon. Friend went on to say that only after the written warning could proceedings be adopted, and that the penalties were very small. Does he accept that the question of penalties is for the local magistrates court? If the magistrates want to draw attention to an exemplary issue, they have powers in their locality to say, "This kind of behaviour is such a problem that I am going to deter people by imposing a higher fine, as long as it does not exceed the maximum specified."

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 November.

Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 November.

Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 November.

Linda Riordan: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on such an important issue for Halifax and for the people I represent. The debate is timely for a number of reasons, which include the recent report outlining the need for more capacity in services on our rail network, the need for Halifax to have a major economic and social boost, and the fact that the operator tendering for the bid, Grand Union, has identified key gaps in the rail market that can be filled, creating dozens of new jobs in west Yorkshire. Rail paths and rolling stock have been identified and full service proposals have been worked up. The plans are now at the Office of Rail Regulation. They are exciting, well-thought-out proposals that the ORR would be crazy to turn down.
	Let me provide a bit of background to the bid. The rail operator, Grand Union, has been developing plans for services from towns such as Halifax for more than two years. Initially, the plans were rejected because of a lack of capacity, but after full engagement with key rail stakeholders the capacity has been found. The major economic tests have been passed and markets identified. Major west Yorkshire towns without direct services to London would be put on the mainline map. The service proposals are exciting, viable and visionary. The rail industry should be biting off Grand Union's hand and welcoming the proposals with open arms.
	It sounds simple, so why has nothing happened yet? Well, things are never simple, especially when it comes to new rail services. Applications get tied down in a boring web of bureaucracy when flair and vision is required to realise the huge potential of the services. Someone needs to grasp the nettle and realise when something good is staring them in the face. The rail industry needs a more can-do attitude, as opposed to the cannot-do approach that seems to prevail. In fact, it seems to me that the more a company wants to run a service the harder it is for its dreams to become reality. In 2008, we should encourage new and imaginative ideas for our railways to get people off roads and onto trains, and not put up obstacle after obstacle, as seems to be happening with the proposals for Halifax and other towns in west Yorkshire such as Bradford, Brighouse and Pontefract.
	My main aim in this debate is to put forward the case that Halifax needs a direct service to London. I also want to explain why that would benefit the town socially and economically, and why the Government should encourage provincial towns to have direct routes to London. Such a link would benefit towns such as Halifax, as well as the rail network and the environment.
	Why more is not being done to allow direct rail routes from towns to our key cities baffles me. For example, it is quite illogical that it takes people in my constituency nearly an hour to travel to the connecting train that will get them to London. What is the point of thousands of people each year being forced to use their motor cars to travel 15 or 20 miles, when they would quite happily use a direct service that could be available on their doorstep?
	Why has the direct link not yet been put in place? I never supported rail privatisation and still do not. Some of the private operators, such as the First group, have done nothing to improve the lot of the passenger, but the system is in place and we need to make the best use of it. One of the few benefits of privatisation is the open-access policy that allows private operators to tender for services. Places such as Hull and Wrexham have benefited, and I want the same rail boost for Halifax.
	Quite simply, Halifax needs a direct train service to London if we are to encourage people out of their cars and onto the train. A direct rail link would also help to promote business growth in the town as Halifax is now a key rail centre, with more than 1 million passengers using rail services there every year.
	A direct rail link to London would also attract inward investment across the wider west Yorkshire region. That has been recognised locally: Grand Union's proposals are in line with the regeneration initiatives of Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency, and with many local and regional transport plans. If any town deserved to be put on the mainline rail map, it is Halifax.
	Unfortunately, the process by which routes are given a green light is too slow and time consuming. The Government and the rail regulator should do much more to encourage and allow operators such as Grand Union to run services from Halifax, Bradford and other towns to London.
	As I said earlier, it is over two years since the first application was put in by Grand Union to run services but, unfortunately, it was rejected. Since then, the company has worked hard to put forward new plans. The timetables are in place, the paths are available, the rolling stock is ordered and ready to go, so what is the delay? Well, the submission is at the rail regulator as we speak, and I hope that the Minister will indicate in his reply that the Government are generally supportive of the proposals.
	Quite simply, the proposal needs the green light, and the timing for Halifax would be ideal. As the economy bites, it would be a welcome shot in the arm for the town. Feasibility studies have shown the economic and social benefits it would bring. The railway station is due for a facelift, with new investment plans in place. Local people want a direct service, as does the business community, and studies show the economic and social benefits that a direct link to London would bring to the town.
	The second-largest employer in Halifax is HBOS, about which we have all heard lots recently. It faces an uncertain future, but I remain confident that jobs will be secured and that the core of its business will remain in Halifax. Yesterday, I received a letter from the bank's general manager, outlining HBOS's support for the direct rail link. He said:
	"The Calderdale region and, of course, Halifax is a key heartland location for HBOS. A new high speed rail link to London would connect our high quality workforce in Halifax directly with the city. It would prove invaluable to the bank, our colleagues and our business partners. We would definitely welcome this new development."
	The support of HBOS is welcome; the bank's is not a lone voice among the business community in Halifax. I have spoken with business owners, such as Roger Harvey, of Harvey's department store, and many others, who said they would use the service to commute to London. They have also told me about the attractions a direct rail link to London would offer their customers and investors. We need only look at the early success of the service from Wrexham and the profile it has given north Wales to see the benefits of direct rail services for medium-sized towns.
	In a week when a report outlined that not enough has been done to promote rail growth and capacity increases over the past year, I would welcome an indication from my hon. Friend the Minister about what the Government will do to encourage and support applications such as the Grand Union bid. One of the biggest problems in driving forward the plans is the pressure from other operators to have applications turned down. Since the privatisation of the railways there has been a similar scenario to the one that occurred after bus privatisation: major operators win their tenders on the back of competition, but they frown on anyone competing with them.
	There is an interesting paradox. When routes become available on the east coast main line, the major operators raise objections to the proposals. The message seems to be, "Get your hands off our territory." If National Express is so worried about the possible success of a Bradford-Halifax-London link, it should have applied to run the service. The company's position is somewhat contradictory. It will not run services from Halifax and Bradford, but is worried about the effect such services might have on its existing core route—an admission that there is market potential.
	The rail regulator should look beyond narrow self-interest when the decision is made, and consider the facts, which are simple. There is enough identified capacity on the east coast main line to suit everyone. Everything is in place to give the Bradford to Halifax service the green light. About 40 years ago, Halifax had a direct rail link to London and today, more than ever, we need that link to be restored. Everything is in place to go and Grand Union's visionary plans deserve to be accepted. As we move through the 21st century, rail will be the answer to many of the questions about how to tackle congestion. There are already plans to provide new direct rail links to London for thousands of people throughout west Yorkshire, so it will be baffling and bizarre if those excellent service proposals are turned down.
	The return of the golden age of railways can be achieved if only the decision makers show some vision. I urge the Office of Rail Regulation to ignore false arguments from rival operators and to recognise the economic, social and investment benefits of Grand Union's plans. Now is the time to get the proposals out of the sidings, give them the green light and get places such as Halifax back on the main line map for good.